Category talk:Benedictines from Asturias
Removal of Category:Benedictines by nationality
[edit]I have removed this cat because (1) as I think you acknowlege, Asturian is not a nationality (unless, I suppose, it were referring to the mediaeval Kingdom of Asturias); the inclusion in Category:Benedictines by nationality of other subcats which are not exact parallels doesn't bear on this one; (2) there is no need to add a cat AND its overcat together: Category:Asturian Benedictines is a subcat of Category:Spanish Benedictines which is in turn already a subcat of Category:Benedictines by nationality - no need for both of them here.Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Then do you intend to remove Anglo-Norman, Anglo-Saxon and Norman-Italian, since those were never nationalities? Daniel the Monk (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I intend to focus the discussion on the cat being discussed! If you feel you have to make a WP:POINT by challenging the others you mention (in my view wrongly), that's up to you, but they are not exact parallels with this one and have no bearing on it. I'm clear for the two reasons given above (and NB: there are TWO reasons) that the Category:Asturian Benedictines should not be a subcat of the Category:Benedictines by nationality.Jsmith1000 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Curious that you frame the discussion that way. I was pointing out other categories which called your analysis of the situation into question, and thus they do have a bearing on the editing options. You didn't give any explanation as to how you could blithely dismiss them as pertinent. As to the subcat element, why did you not consider removing it from Spanish Benedictines and leaving it on its own? Of these various categories, the Asturians are the only group to have been part of a sovereign state with that name, however ancient. Daniel the Monk (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- To spell it out, then, there is a basic difference betw Asturian and the other three cats you mention: the undisambiguated term / article Asturias / Asturian, with the cats derived from it, has a current meaning referring to the present Asturias the Autonomous Region within Spain, and so is ambiguous if used in an historical sense; whereas the other three don't refer to anything current and so are not ambiguous when used as historical terms. So I think it is incorrect - on Wikipedia - to use the undisambiguated term Asturian also to refer to an independent nation state, the Kingdom of Asturias, which ceased to exist in the year 924; and this is why Spain remains the nationality and Asturian a subcat within it. If you disagree with the use of "Asturias" on Wikipedia you can of course open a disussion on the Talk Page of the article Asturias rather than changing the cats, which are supposed to follow the uses of the articles (a point which has been made to you before, I think).Jsmith1000 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Curious that you frame the discussion that way. I was pointing out other categories which called your analysis of the situation into question, and thus they do have a bearing on the editing options. You didn't give any explanation as to how you could blithely dismiss them as pertinent. As to the subcat element, why did you not consider removing it from Spanish Benedictines and leaving it on its own? Of these various categories, the Asturians are the only group to have been part of a sovereign state with that name, however ancient. Daniel the Monk (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I intend to focus the discussion on the cat being discussed! If you feel you have to make a WP:POINT by challenging the others you mention (in my view wrongly), that's up to you, but they are not exact parallels with this one and have no bearing on it. I'm clear for the two reasons given above (and NB: there are TWO reasons) that the Category:Asturian Benedictines should not be a subcat of the Category:Benedictines by nationality.Jsmith1000 (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)